Avionics of the Future?

[OR75]

To save middle class GA, we desperately need advancements in both avionics and power plants. Avionics are no where near as good as they could be and power plants... well.. they have a lot of catching up to do.

what advancement would you like to see in avionics ? (apart from maybe lower price)

i can think of avionics that would be voice activated and have an autopilot fly the plane. ( i personally don't want that)

i had rather have a more reliable ,faster, lower cost, lower noise engine.

[Marauder]

To save middle class GA, we desperately need advancements in both avionics and power plants. Avionics are no where near as good as they could be and power plants... well.. they have a lot of catching up to do. what advancement would you like to see in avionics ? (apart from maybe lower price) i can think of avionics that would be voice activated and have an autopilot fly the plane. ( i personally don't want that) i had rather have a more reliable ,faster, lower cost, lower noise engine.

First of all, NO voice activation! I have never seen one of these work whether it be in call centers, Siri, Nuance or Sync (we call the version in my Ford truck the "b&@ch in the box"). I can see it now, "did you say spiral death dive?". Avionics: What I want is open hierarchy that any manufacturer's product will work with anyone else's. I want a cheaper way to upgrade rather than paying as much to install something as the box costs (think audio panels). Mechanical: a reasonably priced turbine that could directly replace my horizontally opposed engine.

[DaV8or]

what advancement would you like to see in avionics ?

Well... since you asked...

 

Basically I would like to see available technologies integrated into avionics to make flying in IMC and night as easy and nearly as safe as VFR flying. In the future, I see that the instrument rating wouldn't be a rating, but rather just an endorsement to the standard PPL.

 

Here's how-

 

The instrument flight of tomorrow would start by you receiving your clearance digitally, like you get a text on your phone right now. Once you were in contact with clearance delivery, they would "text" you your clearance it would automatically load into your flight director. The written description would be displayed on your MFD as well as the route on the moving map. You would look it over and press the "acknowledge" button on the MFD and this would let ATC know that you've received the clearance and you acknowledge it is correct.

 

When you're cleared for take off, you would already have activated your flight plan and on your PFD would be displayed the hoops for the "highway in the sky" navigation. This type of navigation was developed by NASA in the '80s and it ridiculously easy to follow. In addition, your PFD can display synthetic vision with detailed graphics of all the things around you like buildings and trees. Alternately, you can also switch to the FLIR image and see the real world in infrared. You can choose to hand fly it, or let the 3 axis autopilot fly it for you as you monitor the progress. Your course and terrain is also depicted on the MFD moving map, just as it is today.

 

As you move along in cruise, all radio frequencies including ATIS, is automatically loaded into the standby of your coms. Same is true of all nearby and relevant VORs in your Navs. All ATIS information is displayed textually. There is no writing down and read backs. Your new clearances are also sent to you digitally and loaded automatically just as it was on the ground. You simply acknowledge and then activate. This continues right to the destination runway.

 

In case of GPS failure, running continuously in the background is a VOR based RNAV type system that is using the ground based VORs around you to calculate a very similar direct route to the one the GPS is using, so in the case of the loss of GPS, the system seamlessly transitions to RNAV and the pilot, or auto pilot flies the plane exactly the same way. You continue to follow the highway in the sky and the magenta line, just not quite as accurately as with GPS.

 

In the case of engine out emergency in the clouds, or at night, the flight director can set up a best glide direct to the nearest airport and failing that option, you can hand fly the plane with detailed synthetic vision and FLIR capability and have near the same odds of success as you do today with VFR.

 

In the case of electrical buss failure, you would have redundant ship board battery back up. The back up to that is your iPad type tablet with basic PFD capabilities and synthetic vision.

 

In the case of lost coms, the flight director simply falls back on your filed flight plan all the way to the destination and then directs the transponder to squawk a special code indicating lost coms. Of course you still have redundant coms and navs just like today.

 

The technology to do all this exists today. Right now. It just needs to be integrated. It's dream I know, but if instrument flying was easier and safer, I think more people could get utility out of their airplanes and that would bring more people to flying GA.

[Marauder]

Well... since you asked...

 

Basically I would like to see available technologies integrated into avionics to make flying in IMC and night as easy and nearly as safe as VFR flying. In the future, I see that the instrument rating wouldn't be a rating, but rather just an endorsement to the standard PPL.

 

Here's how-

 

The instrument flight of tomorrow would start by you receiving your clearance digitally, like you get a text on your phone right now. Once you were in contact with clearance delivery, they would "text" you your clearance it would automatically load into your flight director. The written description would be displayed on your MFD as well as the route on the moving map. You would look it over and press the "acknowledge" button on the MFD and this would let ATC know that you've received the clearance and you acknowledge it is correct.

 

When you're cleared for take off, you would already have activated your flight plan and on your PFD would be displayed the hoops for the "highway in the sky" navigation. This type of navigation was developed by NASA in the '80s and it ridiculously easy to follow. In addition, your PFD can display synthetic vision with detailed graphics of all the things around you like buildings and trees. Alternately, you can also switch to the FLIR image and see the real world in infrared. You can choose to hand fly it, or let the 3 axis autopilot fly it for you as you monitor the progress. Your course and terrain is also depicted on the MFD moving map, just as it is today.

 

As you move along in cruise, all radio frequencies including ATIS, is automatically loaded into the standby of your coms. Same is true of all nearby and relevant VORs in your Navs. All ATIS information is displayed textually. There is no writing down and read backs. Your new clearances are also sent to you digitally and loaded automatically just as it was on the ground. You simply acknowledge and then activate. This continues right to the destination runway.

 

In case of GPS failure, running continuously in the background is a VOR based RNAV type system that is using the ground based VORs around you to calculate a very similar direct route to the one the GPS is using, so in the case of the loss of GPS, the system seamlessly transitions to RNAV and the pilot, or auto pilot flies the plane exactly the same way. You continue to follow the highway in the sky and the magenta line, just not quite as accurately as with GPS.

 

In the case of engine out emergency in the clouds, or at night, the flight director can set up a best glide direct to the nearest airport and failing that option, you can hand fly the plane with detailed synthetic vision and FLIR capability and have near the same odds of success as you do today with VFR.

 

In the case of electrical buss failure, you would have redundant ship board battery back up. The back up to that is your iPad type tablet with basic PFD capabilities and synthetic vision.

 

In the case of lost coms, the flight director simply falls back on your filed flight plan all the way to the destination and then directs the transponder to squawk a special code indicating lost coms. Of course you still have redundant coms and navs just like today.

 

The technology to do all this exists today. Right now. It just needs to be integrated. It's dream I know, but if instrument flying was easier and safer, I think more people could get utility out of their airplanes and that would bring more people to flying GA.

 

You have given some thought to this! Nicely stated!

[carusoam]

Dave's future has a positively bright and refreshing near-term outlook!

Seeing the ad for Garmin radios in AOPA this week, where the frequencies are displayed with the name of who they are associated with. The full aviation database is ready to be used in real time. Especially when your nav/com device has a big touch screen computer attached to it.

These type devices will help minimize the cognition errors that can happen to anyone especially in times of higher stress such as IFR flight in busy airspace.

Best regards,

-a-

[Bennett]

Dave,  My lenghtly reply got eaten by the software. Dang.  Rather than retype it all, I want to say that all of the avionics technologies you relate are, as you say, state of the art, and could be implemented with enough demand. We might have to go Manufacturer Specific (Garmin?) to achieve it all.  Lots of the portable folk are nibbling at the edges of some of the navigational presentations (Highway in the Sky boxes, Synthetic Vision, etc.), but I don't think that there is much chance of ATC sending text messages to iPads at this time.  I would love to see text messages as you describe for clearances, ATIS, etc, and especially for the "I have an amendment for your clearance" with mysterious intersections.  The GTN series (and others) already have "nearest airport", and "nearest ATC" frequencies available related to present position and destination, so integrating them to automatically fill "standby" frequencies on designated comms should not be at all difficult, although it is certainly easy enough to do so manually by choosing the "nearest" page. Since I have twp GTNs and two display heads (counting the HSI) I already use the 750 for GPS, and set the 650 to VORs along, or close to, my flight plan.  No good reason this could not be an automatic choice. But cost seems to be a major problem in GA.  We have ADS-B in/out available at relatively low cost for the GTN series, and yet many members of the forum (understandingly) want to pursue less than optimum portable solutions based on cost. Traffic at this time can be graphically and aurally displayed/heard via ADS-B in/out, and is a great safety factor, in my opinion.  Systems integration along the lines you describe should allow even more "look out the window" time than we currently have with all the knob turning (or finger poking) as we do now, not to mention searching for those mysterious intersections on a paper or electronic chart. 

[DaV8or]

 but I don't think that there is much chance of ATC sending text messages to iPads at this time.

 

 

Agreed. The FAA is a major roadblock to this future system. The IFR revolution would have to occur on both sides of the radar. Ultimately, by digitizing and automating much of the routing, ATC costs should go down. A database could easily be built to keep various clearances for flights from every possible airport in America to any other airport in America and then have different options to accomodate differing aircraft types. When you file your flightplan (on line of course) the system would automatically generate a clearance form the database using your departure, destination, aircraft type and current traffic to choose the best routing. Both pilot and controller woudl varify the routing given by the computer as to it's validity. Humans would still check and cross check the system. My hope is, that ADS-B can transmit and recieve this type of data in the future, the infrastructure is being put in place now.

 

But cost seems to be a major problem in GA.

 

 

Absolutely! I don't have great solutions to this problem other than to say that GA avionics need to start using more off the shelf consumer based hardware to take advantage of the greater economy of scale. Computing power and displays can be very cheap if you produce them in the millions. I use the recreational boating industry as an example of this. Runabouts and ski boats are not sold in volumes large enough to be able to have manufacturers design and build their own engines, so they borrow them from the automotive industry which makes new motors affordable.

 

I don't however have too many good ideas on how to get lawyers and litigation liability to back off and by extension, how to get the FAA to relax the regulations. These are thorny issues that will likely be the end of what I call middle class GA.

[Bennett]

I would also want to see greater use of Tower In Route clearances. Southern California still has a few, the Bay Area Tower In Route filings and clearances are long gone. Our new avionics could easily be programed to pair origin and destination airports for flights under a hundred miles or so. I think it was once possible to go Tower In Route (Tower On Route?) between San Carlos or Palo Alto to Sacramento (SAC) just being handed off from tower to tower. This was much simpler than tower to Nor Cal to Oakland Center, back to Nor Cal and then to SAC as an example. These Tower In Route couplings could be choices under flight plan pages. A simple way to tip toe into automated and optimized flight plans. Of course, some programs for iPads can create optimized flight plans considering winds aloft and special use airspace, but not traffic density as described in Dave's vision. Unfortunately it is not pilots who decide better and safer ways to fly (legally) but the FAA who is always years behind the newest concepts.

[Bennett]

Dave has got me thinking about avionics.  Since ADS-B in/out has the ability to send data streams, how hard would it be to have text (not bandwidth intensive) messages sent both ways between ATC and the aircraft? Perhaps having iPads or similar devices coupled to certified avionics as read / input devices. Boggling idea, but, regulatory aspects ignored, this should be fairly easy. Perhaps Aspen Evolution who is already working on coupling iPads to their flight planning system might move in this direction. 

[carusoam]

TEC Route, Bennett?

Tower Enroute Control???

I recall learning about them, then never saw one...

Best regards,

-a-

[OR75]

Well... since you asked...

.

(cut message to keep thread short)

 

I would not disagree with you. That would be nice to have. But if you asked me what is keeping me from flying more today (IFR or VFR), I would not say it is airspace / ATC / Avionics. 

 

I would say it is the powerplant (or the weather).

 

It would be

[Bennett]

Thanks for remembering "TEC" not "TIR"  I know we called them Tower Enroute, but I didn't recall the TEC designation. . I think you can still find some published in the Jepps for Southern California. I recall flying a few of them decades ago, and I still think they are a great idea. especially if they can be selected as a standard flight plan. Sort of SIDS and STARS idea. 

[Bennett]

TEC:

 

http://imageserver.fltplan.com/legends/TEC_SW.pdf

 

 

What's TEC?

Within the national airspace system it is possible for a pilot to fly IFR from one point to another without leaving approach control airspace. This is referred to as 'Tower Enroute Control' or 'TEC' which allows flight beneath the enroute structure. The TEC concept has been expanded (where practical) by reallocating airspace vertically/geographically to allow flight planning between city pairs while remaining within approach control airspace. Pilots are encouraged to use the TEC routes and when filing flight plans within SoCal. 

Other airways which appear to be more direct between two points may take the aircraft out of approach control airspace, or interfere with other traffic flows thereby resulting in additional delays or other complications.

Don't let the name fool you, though, the "tower" in "Tower Enroute Control" does NOT mean you'll only be talking to towers along the route of flight. In fact, you can actually pick up TEC clearances from non-towered airports.

How's it different to normal IFR?

Don't have to file in advance: You can pick up an IFR clearance for a TEC route without filing a flight plan.  Since they are 'canned' routes, they can be issued very quickly, without much effort. Much thought has been put into the TEC route system such that, to the extent possible, it avoids, goes above/below the traffic flows in and out of surrounding airports.  

That said, since online controllers often have to wear many hats (working DEL, GND, TWR, APP and even CTR simultaneously), we still recommend filing a flight plan using the published TEC route to avoid placing undue burden on the controllers if you sense the controller are already very busy.  During quieter times, or if you are working specifically with a DEL/GND/TWR controller, feel free to call up and ask for 'tower enroute' to your destination without filing.

Stayin' low: TEC routes sometimes involve flying at altitudes lower than would otherwise normally be selected, particularly for higher performance jets. This is necessary to keep the planes within the approach controller's airspace, the ceiling for which is well below that of a fast moving jet.  It's less of an issue for slower moving piston aircraft.

 

Just learned that ForeFlight's Trip Advisor shows TEC alternatives. WOW! Foreflight keeps getting better and better. Too bad that the GTN flight plans to not show this option. 

[DaV8or]

(cut message to keep thread short)

 

I would not disagree with you. That would be nice to have. But if you asked me what is keeping me from flying more today (IFR or VFR), I would not say it is airspace / ATC / Avionics. 

 

I would say it is the powerplant (or the weather).

 

It would be

I don't disagree with you, the power plants we use are way behind it would seem, but this thread was about avionics and I think changes in avionics are likely to be easier than changes in power plants. In the field of small plane power plants, the only short term gains there can be realistically is in reliability and I think, a small improvement in economy with the use of diesels, but I'm not sure the problems associated with the later can be overcome by the benefits. Small turbines are right out because there just seems to be no way to make them cheap enough and they are terrible fuel hogs at low altitude where most of us opperate.

 

In the long term, I see our planes powered by electric motors, but we'll have to wait for the automotive industry to come up with something like a rechargeable fuel cell, or a battery with at least 5x improvement in energy density. The electeric motor is the ideal power plant for light aircraft and I beleive that we will see more wide spread usage in the future, but there is still some serious inventing to do. Good news is, there a  a lot of really smart people already working the problem.

[DaV8or]

I always called for and got "Tower Enroute", but I haven't flown IFR in many years and I know things have changed.

[carusoam]

I did a walk down memory lane...

TEC routes are city pairs that can be found in a 50 page section at the back of an AFD... There are some limitations, usually in our favor. Indicated air speed limits, altitudes and single engine ops. There are some that are jet only and others have time limits.

Using flightplan.com probably takes these into account when selecting options / developing your plan...

More review to do...

Best regards,

-a-

[Wildhorsesracing]

More iPad's used for Avionics...  I am seeing a pattern here...